Classic Moral Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chrisb

Guest
Could someone well versed in Classic Catholic Moral Theology help me understand what constitute a Morally Good Act…

As I understand it there are three components to a Morally Good Act… the object chosen, the end in view or intention, and the circumstances.

Could someone better versed in this help me understand it more clearly?

Thanks!
 
chrisb said:
Could someone well versed in Classic Catholic Moral Theology help me understand what constitute a Morally Good Act…

As I understand it there are three components to a Morally Good Act… the object chosen, the end in view or intention, and the circumstances.

Could someone better versed in this help me understand it more clearly?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
It is often easier to approach this by giving examples of what are not.

The following is not a Morally Good Act, despite providing a net good: Burglar breaks into a house with intent to rob, and finds kidnap victims, whom he gets released. The act and intent were both wrong.

Joe, who buys Fred a drink too many, with no reguard for the fact that fred’s driving home, lets Fred get in his car. Nothing happens to either of them. Joe still committed a morally bad act, since the lack of good intent and due caution caused Fred to commit a criminal offense of DUI, even though he didn’t get caught.

Don, with all due dilligence, decides to get cable to watch EWTN, but gets distracted by XTSY, and watches porn. The TV purchase fails to be a morally good because of the end use, but is still not a morally bad act, since the circumstances, intent, and object were good.

To be morally good, you have to have a use that is good intended, and make efforts to meet that good, and use no bad means to get it done.
 
chrisb said:
Could someone well versed in Classic Catholic Moral Theology help me understand what constitute a Morally Good Act…

As I understand it there are three components to a Morally Good Act… the object chosen, the end in view or intention, and the circumstances.

Could someone better versed in this help me understand it more clearly?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The three elements of a morally good act are:
  1. the act itself
  2. intention, which is an act of the human will
  3. circumstance, which is everything other than the act and the intention
Acts are good, in and of themselves, if they implement a positive precept, such as: you shall … love God, love one another, honor your father and mother, keep holy the Sabbath.

Acts are evil, if they violate a negative precept, such as: you shall not… commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, etc.

An act that neither implements a positive precept, nor violates a negative precept, is neutral.

If one does an inherently good act with an evil intention, it is still a sin. If one does a good act with a good intention, but the circumstances are such that evil results (and this evil is not outweighed by any good result), then it is still a sin.

All three goods must be present for an act to be morally good: good intent, good or neutral act, and good in the circumstances (particularly the result of the act).

If any of these three elements of an act are evil, it is a sin.

The object chosen is basically just the act itself, since an act in moral terms is defined not so much by an external act, but by the inherent meaning of the act. This is what is meant by the object of the act, its inherent meaning, not its intention, not the end or result of the act.

So killing an innocent human person to acheive the end result of ending suffering is a morally evil act, because the inherent meaning of the act itself is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. The object of such an act is not the result that suffering ends.
 
How does Classic Moral Teaching evaluate what are the “Morally relevant circumstances” of an act? Isn’t this the criticism of the “proportionalist”?

I’m a novice at moral ethics so help me out here? :o
 
chrisb said:
How does Classic Moral Teaching evaluate what are the “Morally relevant circumstances” of an act? Isn’t this the criticism of the “proportionalist”?

I’m a novice at moral ethics so help me out here?
Click to expand...
proportionalism errs, not in taking circumstances into account when evaluating an act’s morality, but in giving too much weight to circumstances, such that nothing is intrinsically evil, nothing always wrong, everything depends on intent and circumstance.

When an act is itself not intrinsically evil, i.e. an act that is good or neutral, then the intent and circumstances determine if it is good or evil.

Generally speaking, a circumstance is morally relevant only in so far as it relates to the positive and negative precepts (thou shalt and thou shalt not), and this, as Jesus himself plainly stated, is based on only two commandments: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Often, the most relevant circumstance is the effect of the act. If the act is morally good, but in a particular circumstance an effect of the act would harm another person, then the act is immoral. An example of this would be scandal, which can occur even when an act is not immoral, if it can be reasonably foreseen that, as a consequence of the act, some persons might be led by example or by a misunderstanding into sin.

[1 Corinthians]
{8:9} But be careful not to let your liberty become a cause of sin to those who are weak.
{8:10} For if anyone sees someone with knowledge sitting down to eat in idolatry, will not his own conscience, being infirm, be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?
{8:11} And should an infirm brother perish by your knowledge, even though Christ died for him?
{8:12} So when you sin in this way against the brothers, and you harm their weakened conscience, then you sin against Christ.
{8:13} Because of this, if food leads my brother to sin, I will never eat meat, lest I lead my brother to sin.

Ron
 
Thanks Ron you’ve been very helpful!

I’m just not sure exactly what we claim to be ‘objectively evil’ or ‘disordered’. Sins against Modesty… for example.

Could you discuss this?
 
intrinsically evil acts are also called intrinsically or inherently disordered (meaning morally disordered).

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil. Such acts are immoral regardless of circumstance or intention. Such acts cannot become moral by any means whatsoever because the acts are in and of themselves immoral. Intrinsically evil acts do not depend for their morality on intention or circumstance; they do not depend upon the internal state of the individual, nor upon the result of the act, nor upon events which precede, coincide with, or follow the act. Nothing whatsoever can make an act that is intrinsically evil into a good or a morally-acceptable act. That which is in itself evil is never good.
“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; inner quote is from Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, December 2, 1984, 17: AAS 77 (1985), 221)
Click to expand...
The object of an act does not refer to the consequences or end result of the act, nor to the intended purpose of the act, but rather to the meaning inherent in the act itself. Some acts have an inherently evil meaning; such acts are never good and are always immoral.
“There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
Click to expand...
“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1755-1756).
Click to expand...
intrinsically evil acts include: any sexual act other than natural marital relations, lying, stealing, murder, abortion, euthanasia, blasphemy, and any other act inherently opposed to the love of God and neighbor.
 
A GREAT book about this is “Living the Good Life” By Dr. Mark Lowery! He uses the Traditional Natural Law and explains several of these concepts extremely well! 😃 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top